Cheyenne County

Which data vintage would you like? I can provide:

• 2020 Decennial Census (official headcount) for population size, plus
• Latest detailed demographics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year (2019–2023), which is best for small counties.

If no preference, I’ll use 2020 Census for population size and 2019–2023 ACS 5-year for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and household data.

Cheyenne County, CO snapshot (estimates)

• Population: ~1,750. Estimated email users: 1.2–1.4k (roughly 70–80% of residents; ~90% of connected adults).
• Age mix among email users: 18–34: 18–22%; 35–54: 30–35%; 55–64: 18–22%; 65+: 25–30%. Teens use email less regularly.
• Gender split: roughly even; slight male tilt typical of rural/ag areas. Email usage is similar by gender.
• Digital access trends:
  • Home broadband adoption ~60–70%, with another ~10–15% mobile-only. Fixed wireless and satellite (including newer LEO options) fill gaps on farms/ranches.
  • Fiber is expanding in town cores where density supports buildout; speeds and reliability drop in remote areas.
  • Cellular coverage is strongest along US‑40/US‑385 corridors and in Cheyenne Wells/Kit Carson; patchier in outlying areas.
  • Public Wi‑Fi via libraries/schools helps students and low-income households.
• Local density/connectivity facts: ~1 person per square mile across ~1,780 sq mi makes network construction costly; most residents cluster in Cheyenne Wells and Kit Carson, with very sparse settlement elsewhere—driving a mobile-first email pattern for many.

Notes: Figures are derived from 2020 Census population, rural broadband adoption research, and typical email uptake among connected adults.

Cheyenne County, CO mobile usage summary

Snapshot and user estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 1,800–2,000 residents, very low density and highly rural.
• Unique mobile users: about 1,400–1,700 people with an active mobile phone (derived from adult/teen population shares and rural adoption rates).
• Active lines/SIMs (phones, hotspots, tablets, IoT): about 1,700–2,100, reflecting some multi‑device households and ag/vehicle modems.
• Smartphone vs basic phone: smartphone use is dominant overall but meaningfully lower among seniors than the Colorado average; basic/feature phones and “talk/text” plans are more common than statewide.

Demographic and usage patterns

• Age skew: older than the state average. Among 65+, smartphone adoption lags Colorado by a wide margin; voice/SMS and Wi‑Fi calling see heavier use. Younger residents (students, working-age commuters) mirror statewide app and social usage when coverage allows.
• Income and plan mix: lower median incomes than the state; higher reliance on prepaid, discount MVNOs, and shared family plans. With the end of ACP subsidies, price sensitivity rose, pushing some users to smaller data buckets or hotspot-only solutions.
• Language/ethnicity: predominantly non‑Hispanic White with a small but important Hispanic/Latino community; some bilingual Spanish use in households and seasonal farm workforces.
• Work patterns: agriculture and energy drive daytime traffic around farms, grain facilities, and wind projects; weather, markets, messaging, and PTT/LMR interop apps are common. Precision‑ag deployments use cellular modems; LTE‑M is more available than NB‑IoT.
• Home internet substitution: a split trend—households without reliable wired service lean on phone hotspots or fixed‑wireless routers; seniors with limited data needs often keep basic mobile plans and rely on landline or in‑home Wi‑Fi where available.

Digital infrastructure highlights

• Carrier footprint: Verizon typically provides the most continuous rural coverage; AT&T is solid in towns and along major corridors; T‑Mobile is present but sparser off‑corridor. 5G is mostly low‑band; mid‑band 5G capacity is limited compared with Front Range metros.
• Coverage geography: macro sites cluster in/near Cheyenne Wells, Kit Carson, and along US‑40 and US‑385; signal degrades quickly on section roads and in draws. In‑building coverage can be weak; Wi‑Fi calling and signal boosters are common.
• Backhaul and fiber: local/co‑op fiber exists in town centers and to community anchor institutions; outside those pockets, backhaul often relies on microwave. Eastern Slope Rural Telephone Association and other regional providers operate fiber and fixed‑wireless; DSL still exists in some areas.
• Public safety and redundancy: AT&T FirstNet covers primary corridors; Colorado’s 700/800 MHz DTRS LMR network underpins voice for responders. Extended power outages and severe weather can impact cell uptime; backup power varies by site.
• Public access points: library, schools, and county facilities offer Wi‑Fi that many residents use for updates and downloads.

How Cheyenne County differs from Colorado statewide

• Coverage vs speed: reliability and basic reach matter more than peak speeds; large gaps remain off highways—unlike most Colorado population centers where contiguous 4G/5G is the norm.
• Carrier choice: practical choice narrows to one or two carriers outside towns; in cities, three nationwide carriers (plus MVNOs) are viable almost everywhere.
• 5G reality: low‑band 5G is present but delivers LTE‑like performance; mid‑band 5G capacity common along the Front Range is scarce here.
• Device mix and plans: more basic phones and prepaid plans, fewer unlimited premium plans; data rationing and hotspot use are more common.
• Mobile-as-broadband: a higher share of households rely on cellular hotspots or fixed‑wireless for home connectivity than the state average, but total per‑capita mobile data consumption is often lower due to coverage gaps and data caps.
• Adoption by seniors: the 65+ smartphone gap versus the state average is wider, reinforcing the continued importance of voice/SMS and landline fallback.
• Seasonal/diurnal swings: traffic spikes align with farm operations, harvest, and highway flows; urban Colorado shows more consistent, app-driven traffic profiles.

Notes on estimates and method

• Figures are planning estimates synthesized from county population size, rural adoption patterns in the Plains, and known infrastructure characteristics; they are intended as ranges, not precise counts.
• Local verification (carrier coverage tools, cooperative build maps, school/library network staff, and on-the-ground signal testing) will refine siting decisions and program design.

Here’s a concise, locally tuned snapshot based on U.S. Census population size and rural-Colorado patterns (benchmarked to Pew’s 2024 social media data and adjusted for older age mix). Figures are estimates; small-county samples and ad-tool counts can be noisy.

Overall usage

• Population: ~1.8K residents; ~1.4K adults.
• Social media users: ~950–1,150 adults (≈70–80% of adults; ≈60–70% of total population).
• Devices: Primarily smartphones; desktop use is limited.

Most‑used platforms (share of local social media users, monthly)

• YouTube: 75–85%
• Facebook: 65–75% (Facebook Groups are central)
• Instagram: 25–40% (skews <40 and women)
• Snapchat: 20–30% (teens/young adults)
• TikTok: 20–30% (stronger among <35)
• Pinterest: 20–30% (women 25–54)
• X/Twitter: 8–15% (news/sports niche)
• LinkedIn: 8–15% (very light, job‑seeking/pro recruitment)
• WhatsApp: 5–12% (family/intl ties; varies by community)
• Reddit: 5–10% (younger/tech interests)
• Nextdoor: negligible

Age mix of local social media users (share of users)

• 13–17: 8–12%
• 18–29: 15–20%
• 30–49: 33–40% (largest slice)
• 50–64: 22–28%
• 65+: 12–18%

Gender breakdown

• Overall users: roughly 48–52% men, 48–52% women (slight female tilt likely among active users).
• Platform tendencies:
  • More female: Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest.
  • More male: Reddit, X/Twitter, YouTube (slight).
  • Near‑even: TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube overall.

Behavioral trends to know

• Community hubs: Facebook Groups drive local info (buy/sell/trade, school sports, road/weather, county offices, churches). High trust in posts from known locals.
• Content preferences: Practical and hyper‑local wins—school events, athletics, harvest/4H, road closures, classifieds, service recommendations, lost/found pets.
• Posting vs lurking: Majority are readers; posting spikes around events, storms, and school seasons.
• Messaging: Facebook Messenger is common; Snapchat among teens/20s; SMS group texts persist. WhatsApp is situational.
• Video habits: YouTube for how‑to, ag/mechanic repairs, home projects, hunting/fishing, and local streams; short TikTok/Reels for entertainment. Connectivity constraints favor shorter videos and off‑peak viewing.
• Timing: Peaks before work (6–8am), lunch, and evenings (7–10pm); weekends; surges during severe weather. Planting/harvest reduce daytime engagement.
• Advertising/use by orgs: Local businesses and agencies rely on boosted Facebook posts; job openings and event promotions perform well. Instagram works for visual retail/food; X/Twitter is limited for reach.

Notes on method and sources

• Built from county size (U.S. Census) plus Pew Research Center’s Social Media Use (2024) with rural adjustments; platform shares are estimated ranges tailored to Cheyenne County’s older, rural profile. For precise counts, validate with platform ad‑planning tools targeting Cheyenne County, CO.